TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

FROM: BRIAN LYNCH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER

SUBJECT: 1790 CENTRO WEST; FILE #20234

SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND ADDITIONS TO A DETACHED TWO-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT, WITH VARIANCES FOR REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK AND REDUCED SIDE YARD SETBACK.

MEETING DATE: MARCH 6, 2002 REVIEWED BY: DMW

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303.

BACKGROUND:

On December 5, 2002, the Design Review Board held a public hearing and reviewed a request to construct a detached garage and additions to a detached two-family dwelling on a property located at 1790 Centro West Street. There were several concerns voiced from the public and the Board, therefore the public hearing was continued until February 20, 2003, so the applicant could make changes to address the concerns.

At the February 20, 2003, Board meeting, the applicant submitted a revised project design, and there was again much public comment regarding the application. Most the comments were regarding the fact that the project would necessitate the relocation of a row of mailboxes that are currently located adjacent to the existing garage on the subject site. The Board was unable to respond to those comments because it is not within their purview to discuss the installation of mailboxes. This issue would be referred to the US Postal Service and the Tiburon Public Works Department to ensure an appropriate location for the mailboxes would be found.

The Board did offer several comments on the proposed application. In general, the Board agreed that the plan addressed many of the concerns that were voiced at the December 5, 2003 Board meeting. The Board agreed that the application represented a good resolution to the difficulties presented by the site. The Board agreed that the view impacts and the parking problems were addressed. A draft copy of the minutes from the February 20, 2003, Design Review Board meeting have been attached for reference.

The project reviewed on February 20, 2003, involved an additional variance request for reduced side yard setback because of the proposed parking deck adjacent to the garage. This variance request was not adequately noticed to the public; therefore the Board was unable to take action on the item. The front yard and side yard variance requests have now been properly noticed to the public, and the Board could take action on the application at this time.

PROPOSAL:

The applicant submitted a revised plan on February 27, 2003. The configuration of the parking deck adjacent to the proposed garage has been modified. The parking deck would be located closer to, and parallel with, the new garage. The stairs leading down to the dwelling unit underneath the garage would be located on the left side of the parking deck. The under floor space beneath the parking deck would be used as storage. This revised plan would allow the mailboxes to be stacked two high, and they would be able to remain in the same general location. The other aspects of the project would remain the same.

ANALYSIS:

Zoning

Except for the above mentioned variance requests for reduced front yard setback and reduced side yard setback, the project appears to be in conformance with the remaining development regulations of the R-2 zoning district.

Variances

In order to grant the requested front and side yard variances, the Board must make the following findings as required by Section 4.03.05 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance:

Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones.

The subject property slopes significantly from the street to the rear of the property, which limits the areas that the applicant can construct improvements. The proposed location of building "B" and the parking deck would not significantly increase the existing non-conformity with the required front yard setback. This is because the new structure would take advantage of the existing building pad as much as possible. Utilizing the existing building pad would also reduce the physical impact to the site.

The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones.

The Old Tiburon neighborhood is unique in that the roads are narrow and the properties are usually steep. There are several homes in the immediate vicinity that have features located within the required front and side yard setbacks, simply for reasonable development and access to the properties. Therefore the variance would not be a special privilege inconsistent with properties in the vicinity.

The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship.

The strict application of the Ordinance would result in a practical difficulty because the applicant would be forced to construct improvements in areas of the lot that are less accessible to the street, and less amenable to construction. In addition, the pre-established building pad of the existing garage and studio would not be able to be utilized.

The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity.

As revised, the project would not result in significant view, privacy, or other impacts detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity.

Public Comment

No public comment has been received regarding the revised application.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Board review this project with respect the Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review, review the requested variances in respect to the required variance findings by the acting body, and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. It is also recommended that the Board identify the physical considerations of the site that are factors that justify a two-building design rather than a one-building alternative. If the Board finds that the design of the project is consistent with the Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review, and all necessary findings can be made for the variances for reduced front and side yard setbacks, then it is recommended that the project be approved with the attached Conditions of Approval.

EXHIBITS:

Conditions of Approval

Plans for the revised project

EXHIBIT 1

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1790 Centro West

FILE #20234 

This approval shall be used within 3 years of the approval date, and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued.

The development of this project shall conform to the plans approved by the Design Review Board on March 6, 2003, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the approved plans must receive further design review and approvals.

All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review Board must be down-light type fixtures.

Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall be identical to those approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the approved Design Review plans, the permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying all such changes when submitted to the Building Department for plan check. Such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the submitted plans. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the building plans, with a signature block to be signed by the Design Review Staff member indicating that these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or require additional Design Review. All changes that have not been explicitly approved by Staff as part of the Building Plan Check process are not approved. Construction that does not have Design Review approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal.